Skip to content

Generalizing AC Appeals and using this procedure for recall. #888

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: ab-tag-discipline
Choose a base branch
from
+80 −31
Draft

Generalizing AC Appeals and using this procedure for recall. #888

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
683c2c1
Refactor AC Appeals
frivoal Jun 18, 2024
4cba5bf
Add recall procedures for AB and TAG members
frivoal Jun 18, 2024
f316688
Adjust terminology
frivoal Apr 22, 2025
fe62b41
Clarify 6 months since what
frivoal Apr 28, 2025
43c021a
Clarify 3 months to *close* of election
frivoal Apr 29, 2025
a33f999
Use more precise phrasing
frivoal Apr 30, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
111 changes: 80 additions & 31 deletions index.bs
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1346,6 +1346,31 @@ Removing AB or TAG members</h5>

Note: Removal from the [=AB=] or [=TAG=] does not imply removal from a convened [=Council=].

<h5 id="AB-TAG-recall">
AC Recall of AB or TAG</h5>

The [=Advisory Committee=] <em class=rfc2119>may</em>
<dfn export>recall</dfn>,
as a whole,
all [[#AB-TAG-elections|elected]] and [[#TAG-appointments|appointed]] participants
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why can the AC recall appointed seats?

Elected seats, I get. The people in those seats were put there by the membership and are accountable to it.

But part of the rationale I've heard for retaining appointed seats on the TAG is so the Team can fill gaps that the membership left when it elected the rest of the TAG, which may or may not be gaps the membership values or prioritizes. It seems to me, therefore, that the appointed seats aren't accountable to the membership, which didn't pick them, but instead to the Team, which did.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That said, it seems like the Team ought to have the power to recall people from appointed seats. It put them there for reasons. If it turns out their presence is not conducive to advancing those reasons, the Team ought to be able to remove them and appoint someone else.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why can the AC recall appointed seats?

Individually, it should not (and in this proposal, doesn't). As a whole, that's indeed debatable. Here, the idea is that if specific individuals, appointed or elected, need to be removed the group itself should deal with that, but the AC finds the group as a whole to be dysfunctional / harmful beyond redemption, it can call for a clean slate. Why kick the appointed people out too, even though they're not elected by the membership? My idea would be that (a) if the group is a whole is broken, they're part of that, and (b) they're appointed by the Team in order to complement the elected positions. If we're starting from scratch on that side, they need reevaluation too.

That said, while it makes sense to me to do it this way, I don't think I'd object to the recall only affecting the elected seats.

As for the Team having the power to recall the people it put it place, I'd need to think about it. First, it's not purely a Team appointment: the team proposes, but the TAG+AB decides. TAG members are supposed to act indepentently, as individuals, not in the interests or on behalf of any particular organization, but for the common good of the web. If the Team can give you the job and take it away, I think that might be a bit too direct of a power dynamic for my taste, making the appointees feel that they work for the Team, which I don't think would be appropriate. Also, "out their presence is not conducive to advancing those reasons" seems too low a bar to eject people. Removal from office is a pretty drastic measure, and I don't think being mediocre, or being capable but not in the expected way, is a justifiable reason.

from the [=Advisory Board=] or the [=Technical Architecture Group=].

An [=Advisory Committee representative=] invokes a [=recall=]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems like the bar for triggering this should be much higher than a single AC representative request.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

read on. This starts with a single person (how else), but then you need to meet the same criteria as an AC appeal, which means finding 5% needs to support having the vote, or it stops right there.

by sending a request to the Team, and <em class=rfc2119>should</em> also share this request with the Advisory Committee.
The request <em class=rfc2119>must</em> identify whether the [=AB=] or [=TAG=] is targeted,
and <em class=rfc2119>should</em> also include the rationale.

Within one week, the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> initiate an [=Advisory Committee Override=]
on the proposal.

The conclusion of the [=Advisory Committee Override=] is final,
and cannot be the subject of a [=Formal Objection=] nor of an [=AC Appeal=]:
if the [=Advisory Committee Override=] proposal passes,
all [[#AB-TAG-elections|elected]] or [[#TAG-appointments|appointed]] seats on [=AB=] or [=TAG=] are [=vacated=] immediately;
if it fails, [=recall=] cannot be invoked on the same body
sooner than six months since the previous invocatoin.
The [=Team=] must announce the conclusion of the [=Advisory Committee Override=] to the [=Advisory Committee=].

<h5 id="AB-TAG-vacated">
Elected Groups Vacated Seats</h5>

@@ -1356,7 +1381,7 @@ Elected Groups Vacated Seats</h5>
the participant resigns, or

<li>
the participant is [=removed=], or
the participant is [=removed=] or [=recalled=], oor
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
the participant is [=removed=] or [=recalled=], oor
the participant is [=removed=] or [=recalled=], or

typo


<li>
an Advisory Board or TAG participant changes affiliations
@@ -1386,7 +1411,7 @@ Elected Groups Vacated Seats</h5>
<li>
When an elected seat on either the [=AB=] or [=TAG=] is vacated,
the seat is filled at the next regularly scheduled election for the group
unless the group Chair requests that W3C hold an election before then
unless the group Chair requests that W3C hold a [=special election=] before then
(for instance, due to the group's workload).

<ul>
@@ -1400,16 +1425,19 @@ Elected Groups Vacated Seats</h5>
including a resignation effective as of a given date in the future.
</ul>

When such an election is held,
the minimum number of available seats is such that
when added to the number of continuing participants,
the minimum total number of elected seats is met
(8 for the [=TAG=], 9 for the [=AB=]);
and the maximum number corresponds to all unoccupied seats.
Except for the number of available seats and the length of the terms,
the <a href="#AB-TAG-elections">usual rules for Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Elections</a> apply.
<li>
If vacancies reduce the number of [=AB=] or [=TAG=] participants to 0,
the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> organize a [=special election=]
unless a regular Call for Nominations is scheduled within 1 month.
</ul>

When a <dfn>special election</dfn> is held,
vacated seats are filled for the remainder of the term of the vacancy,
and the (minimum, maximum) number of available seats is
the number of seats required to meet
the (minimum, maximum) total defined for the group.
The <a href="#AB-TAG-elections">usual rules for Advisory Board and Technical Architecture Group Elections</a> otherwise apply.

<h3 id="GAGeneral" oldids="ChapterGroups, WG-and-IG">
Chartered Groups: Working Groups and Interest Groups</h3>

@@ -1796,7 +1824,7 @@ Initiating Charter Refinement</h3>
and can be appealed only by 5 or more [=Members=],
through their [=Advisory Committee representative=],
formally objecting to the decision within 8 weeks of the decision being announced.
In this case the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> start an [=appeal vote=]
In this case the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> start an [=override vote=]
on whether to overturn the [=Team Decision=].
(No action is required to be taken when fewer than 5 members object.)

@@ -2942,7 +2970,7 @@ Advisory Committee Votes</h3>

The [=Advisory Committee=] votes in <a href="#AB-TAG-elections">elections for seats on the TAG or Advisory Board</a>,
and in the event of an [=Advisory Committee Appeal=]
achieving the required support to trigger an [=appeal vote=].
achieving the required support to trigger an [=override vote=].
Whenever the [=Advisory Committee=] votes,
each Member or group of [=related Members=] has one vote.

@@ -2976,24 +3004,50 @@ Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives</h3>

An [=Advisory Committee representative=] initiates an [=appeal=] by sending a request to the [=Team=],
and should also share this request with the [=Advisory Committee=].
The request should say “I appeal this Decision”
The request <em class=rfc2119>should</em> say “I appeal this Decision”
and identify the decision,
and may also include their rationale for appealing the decision.
and <em class=rfc2119>may</em> also include their rationale for the [=appeal=].

Note: See [[DECISION-APPEAL inline]] for a recommendation
on how to communicate an appeal request to the [=Team=] and the [=AC=].

Within one week the [=Team=] <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the appeal process
Within one week, the [=Team=] <em class="rfc2119">must</em> initiate the [=appeal=]
in the form of an [=Advisory Committee Override=]
on the proposal to overturn the decision.

The conclusion of the [=Advisory Committee Override=] is final;
the same decision cannot be appealed more than once.

If the [=Advisory Committee Override=]
approves the proposal to overturn the decision,
those who had initiated the proposal <em class=rfc2119>may</em> revise it
to address the causes of rejection
and follow the ordinary applicable process
to submit the revised proposal.

<h3 id="ac-override">
Advisory Committee Override</h3>

An <dfn export>Advisory Committee Override</dfn> is an exceptional two-step procedure
used to resolve certain matters where neither the usual [=consensus=]
process nor its [[#addressing-fo|escalation path]] is sufficient.

Note: Currently, this only applies to [=AC Appeals=]
and [=recalls=] of the [=AB=] or [=TAG=].

First, the [=Team=] <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the proposal for an [=Advisory Committee Override=]
to the [=Advisory Committee=]
and provide a mechanism for [=Advisory Committee representatives=]
to respond with a statement of positive support for this appeal.
to respond with a statement of positive support for holding a vote.
The archive of these statements <em class="rfc2119">must</em> be [=member-only=].

If, within <span class="time-interval">one week</span> of the Team's announcement,
5% or more of the [=Advisory Committee=] support the appeal request,
the Team <em class="rfc2119">must</em> organize an <dfn>appeal vote</dfn>
5% or more of the [=Advisory Committee=] support holding the vote,
the Team <em class="rfc2119">must</em> organize an <dfn>override vote</dfn>
asking the [=Advisory Committee=]
“Do you approve of the Decision?”
together with links to the decision and the appeal support.
whether they approve of the Advisory Committee Override proposal,
including details of the proposal
and links to support for holding the vote.

The ballot <em class="rfc2119">must</em> allow for three possible responses:
“Approve”,
@@ -3006,24 +3060,19 @@ Appeal by Advisory Committee Representatives</h3>
(including explicit “abstain” ballots)
by [=Advisory Committee Representatives=]:
* if fewer than 5% participate,
the vote fails.
the proposal is rejected.
* if at least 5% but no more than 15% participate,
and the number of “Approve” ballots exceeds three times (3x) the number of “Reject” ballots,
the vote passes.
the proposal is approved.
* if more than 15% but fewer than 20% participate,
and the number of “Approve” ballots exceeds twice (2x) the number of “Reject” ballots,
the vote passes.
the proposal is approved.
* if 20% or more participate,
and the number of “Approve” ballots exceeds the number of “Reject” ballots,
the vote passes.
the proposal is approved.

If the vote passes,
the decision is overturned.
Following such rejection,
those who had initiated the proposal may revise it
to address the causes of rejection
and follow the ordinary applicable process
to submit the revised proposal.
Otherwise,
the proposal is rejected.

<h2 id="Reports">
W3C Technical Reports</h2>